- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge Tigar defies federal appeals court, reinstates injunction against asylum ban
Posted on 9/10/19 at 12:08 pm to ShortyRob
Posted on 9/10/19 at 12:08 pm to ShortyRob
quote:are we really going to debate Marbury versus Madison?
No one in their right fricking minds thinks that the SAME people who wrote that then wrote, "but hey, with only 51% of their vote, they can create a lower court that can override the executive!
2
Posted on 9/10/19 at 12:16 pm to AggieHank86
Why wouldn’t we?
Posted on 9/10/19 at 12:22 pm to AggieHank86
quote:No. Because I'm not going to play silly games.
are we really going to debate Marbury versus Madison?
There's a reason national injunctions didn't used to be common and it isn't because no one was ever unhappy with the world until recently.
But if you must, Marshall was wrong. Alas, even Marshall probably mistakenly thought that judges would for the most part, be judges.
Sometimes, you're wrong just because you can't anticipate how scummy people REALLY can be.
He was correct that courts should have the power to "review"...........but this review should be on the same level. IE,........you know..............tiers.
Nevertheless. This again is my point. Lawyers(and judges" have rendered our constitution meaningless)
There is ZERO functional difference in 2019 between having one and not. The judges would rule the same in either case. Because they've completely abandoned the idea that words mean things.
Posted on 9/10/19 at 12:30 pm to ShortyRob
You are correct. Nationwide injunctions are not normal, 1L stuff or business as usual. There is no inherent constitutional power, statute, or common law rule that specifically authorizes this practice. The fact that appeals courts frequently remand cases back totally misses the point that posters like Strannix and Short are making.
In 2018 alone, the Trump administration faced 22 different nationwide injunctions. Prior to 2015, the process was entirely sporadic (albeit challenges against DACA started the fire).
Tigar's citations largely deal with the need for nationwide injunctions in civil actions. That is, no one is going to care if the 9th circuit issues an injunction against a trademark infringer and does so nationwide. That is how things are suppose to work.
Prior to recently, if a judge found a ruling unconstituational, they just didn't enforce it. Now, they are setting up judicial review of policy level decisions. That is an affront to the intent of our justice system, and the continual practice of this nonsense will lead to the impact that we are seeing-- serial litigation with certain judges finding a basis to implement policy.
The fact that this procedurally allowable, or even rote enough to apply in civil actions in no way means this is how the system should work. On again/off again injunctions against policy set by a chief executive is a terrible way to run government. There is no noble design in implementing this type of system and no amount of maxims that resonate only to lawyer's ears will change the efficacy of this nonsense.
In 2018 alone, the Trump administration faced 22 different nationwide injunctions. Prior to 2015, the process was entirely sporadic (albeit challenges against DACA started the fire).
Tigar's citations largely deal with the need for nationwide injunctions in civil actions. That is, no one is going to care if the 9th circuit issues an injunction against a trademark infringer and does so nationwide. That is how things are suppose to work.
Prior to recently, if a judge found a ruling unconstituational, they just didn't enforce it. Now, they are setting up judicial review of policy level decisions. That is an affront to the intent of our justice system, and the continual practice of this nonsense will lead to the impact that we are seeing-- serial litigation with certain judges finding a basis to implement policy.
The fact that this procedurally allowable, or even rote enough to apply in civil actions in no way means this is how the system should work. On again/off again injunctions against policy set by a chief executive is a terrible way to run government. There is no noble design in implementing this type of system and no amount of maxims that resonate only to lawyer's ears will change the efficacy of this nonsense.
Posted on 9/10/19 at 12:41 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
If it is indecipherable to THE PEOPLE and nothing means what it says, then don't waste your time writing one.
Hell, even Captain Kirk knew this and explained it to the Yangs and Comms....
Posted on 9/10/19 at 12:49 pm to oogabooga68
quote:
Hell, even Captain Kirk knew this and explained it to the Yangs and Comms....
Schoolhouse rock would sing the preamble too!
There are decisions that are unpopular. There may even be complex issues where its difficult to understand everything that is going on. Nevertheless, most people can gather when decisions are being made based on politics rather than law, and saying a bunch of latin incantations does not make the result more digestable or decipherable.
Posted on 9/10/19 at 12:58 pm to dukkbill
quote:
Schoolhouse rock would sing the preamble too!
You guys do know that one day, a Republican president is going to veto a congressional bill, and some judge is going to rule the Veto "unconstitutional"..........right?
I will almost certainly live to see it
Posted on 9/10/19 at 1:01 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
There is ZERO functional difference in 2019 between having one and not. The judges would rule the same in either case. Because they've completely abandoned the idea that words mean things.
Language has been destroyed. There’s no going back, really. There’s no meaning to words. Lawyers love this because it increases billable hours. When society descends into chaos (and that is the end result of deconstructionism), the lawyers will pretend they’ve had no part in it.
Posted on 9/10/19 at 1:01 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
You guys do know that one day, a Republican president is going to veto a congressional bill, and some judge is going to rule the Veto "unconstitutional"..........right?
Not hyperbole, I'm genuinely surprised it hasn't happened yet.
There are exceptions, but the Law Industry seems to be a magnet for some of the zhittiest scumbags on the Planet.
Posted on 9/10/19 at 1:04 pm to oogabooga68
quote:It will
Not hyperbole, I'm genuinely surprised it hasn't happened yet.
They're just testing what they can get away with.
The bottom line? The left has decided to use this to negate elections. There are no limits to where they are willing to go with it.
And, they don't even EVER need to "win". If you can simply force EVERY decision made to have to find its way to the Supreme Court, it really doesn't matter if you lose every last case at the SCOTUS. You've won.
Posted on 9/10/19 at 1:08 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
ou guys do know that one day, a Republican president is going to veto a congressional bill, and some judge is going to rule the Veto "unconstitutional"..........right?
You sort of got to see it with Clinton v. City of New York, albeit with a democrat president and a line item veto.
This post was edited on 9/10/19 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 9/10/19 at 1:10 pm to cwill
quote:
Ok, bye
You know where the door is.
Posted on 9/10/19 at 1:12 pm to oogabooga68
quote:
You guys do know that one day, a Republican president is going to veto a congressional bill, and some judge is going to rule the Veto "unconstitutional"..........right?
Not hyperbole, I'm genuinely surprised it hasn't happened yet.
I should add that the fun will really begin when lower courts start "overrruling" SCOTUS decisions as "unconstitutional".
Which WILL happen in our lifetimes if Trump gets another judge on the court(maybe even without)
Posted on 9/10/19 at 1:22 pm to AggieHank86
I mentioned no names, but if you feel the need to tattle again because you fear me so, go ahead.
Posted on 9/10/19 at 1:24 pm to oogabooga68
quote:
One would think that (no names) had been threatened with another 6 months in banland.
I mentioned no names, but if you feel the need to tattle again because you fear me so, go ahead.
Posted on 9/10/19 at 1:24 pm to oogabooga68
You have been permbanned before, and you will permabanned again. No need for me to play a role. It is who you are.
This post was edited on 9/10/19 at 1:25 pm
Posted on 9/10/19 at 1:26 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
You have been permbanned before, and you will permabanned again. No need for me to play a role. It is who you are.
You're showing everyone how cowardly you are.
If you have to go tattle (again) because you can't handle a little rough play, you aren't as great as you CONSTANTLY tell every one you are....
Posted on 9/10/19 at 1:28 pm to oogabooga68
I hand you your arse every time we cross swords, and you call me a coward. That is cute.
Posted on 9/10/19 at 1:30 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I hand you your arse every time we cross swords
You mean like that time I exposed you as a fraud and a liar for using fake-sources to justify your terminal case of Trump Penis Envy?
I member'......
Posted on 9/10/19 at 1:31 pm to oogabooga68
You are such a strange, delusional individual.
Page 9 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News